Goodyear v. Brown
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|10-76||Court of Appeals of North Carolina||
Jan 11, 2011
|Jun 27, 2011||9-0||Ginsburg||OT 2010|
Holding: Goodyear's foreign subsidiaries were not amenable to suit in North Carolina on claims that were unrelated to any activity by them in that state.
Plain English Summary:
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on June 27, 2011.
- Academic highlight: Symposium on Goodyear and Nicastro (Amanda Frost)
- Opinion analysis: No jurisdiction over foreign companies (James Bickford)
- The last week of the Term: In Plain English (Lisa McElroy)
- Argument recap: Deciding when foreign companies can be haled into U.S. state court (Andy Zahn)
- Argument previews: When do state courts have general and specific jurisdiction? (Andy Zahn)
- A review of "state secrets" (Lyle Denniston)
Briefs and DocumentsMerits briefs
- Brief for Petitioner Goodyear Luxembourg Tires, S.A., Goodyear Lastikleri, T.A.S., and Goodyear Dunlop Tires France, S.A.
- Brief for Respondent Edgar Brown and Pamila Brown, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Julian David Brown, and Karen M. Helms, Administratrix of the Estate of Matthew M. Helms.
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Goodyear Luxembourg Tires, S.A., Goodyear Lastikleri, T.A.S., and Goodyear Dunlop Tires France, S.A.
- Brief for the United States in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for the Product Liability Advisory Council in Support Petitioner
- Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Washington Legal Foundation and the Allied Education Foundation in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for the Organization for International Investment and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers in Support of Petitioners